Feminists in Academia

"in a spirit of academic open-mindedness, Summers raised the possibility that "innate difference" might be a factor as well. According to reports, he didn't necessarily embrace this view so much as throw it out for discussion. Indeed, before he raised this point he apparently said several times, "I'm going to provoke you"

He did: MIT Biologist Nancy Hopkins, promptly walked out of the lecture by Larry Summers, in which he suggested that women might have less innate ability at mathematics, compared to men. She said "When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," He has since responded.

Jonah Goldberg provides an account of the events.

Firstly, there are innate differences between men and women. There is plenty of scientific evidence, (see here), and as a science those who contend the findings must respond with analysis, not emotion.

Compare this story to an article that appeared in The Economist last week, The Stronger Sex, Why do women live longer than men? Recent evidence suggests that men lose one-third of the contractile muscle cells between the ages of 20-70, whereas women do not. Perhaps oestrogen, a femal sex hormone, is good for the heart. Is this a valid example of scientific enquiry? Of course. Might it encourage discimination in the workplace? Indeed - CEO's tend to be in their 60s, leading stressfull jobs, and prone to heart attacks. The implications are that on this margin, women have an advantage over men.

The reason that men aren't up in arms about such findings, I imagine, is that we're not used to being discriminated against (at least the middle-class, white, tall, 20-20 vision, intelligent.... ) and as such are not in a battle. If I were in a battle, my strategy would be to compete to my comparative advantage, and not act according to the stereotype I'm trying to contend.

Also, Deirdre McCloskey is a "free-market feminist", and has written some delightful prose arguing that an over-formalism in economics costs the discipline. In other words, discrimination in academia makes it easier for men to progress, but because of this economist's have become too obessesed with their "fancy" mathematical models.

Personally, I think the largest reason that more women aren't in academia is the same reason Summer's claimed:

The numerical predominance of men in science, Summers said, is chiefly explained by the commonsense, and commonly agreed upon, observation that the demands of motherhood tend to interfere with careers that require vast quantities of time at a very young age. Just like top lawyers and bankers, Summers explained, jobs requiring 80-hour workweeks disproportionately hurt women who tend to be primary caregivers for children for long stretches of time.

If a woman could signal to an employer she will not have children, she'd be more likely to get a top job. Of course such a contract wouldbe illegal, and therefore childless women should direct their complaints toward pregnant women, and not men. My old boss took long term maternity leave a month after being promoted to senior management - needless to say the mixed-sex hiring panel were not best pleased.

Since academia is quite insulated from market signals, it is a fertile ground for discrimination. But rest assurred, there are more logical reasons that mysterious "institutional discrimination".

Comments

[RP]

The point made is one that should be made - but it does leave us back where we started from. Twisted nature who leaves the child rearing and bearing to the female of the species! I would have happily signed a contract at the age of 19 that I would never have children but life changes and so does your mind ( I also said that I would never wear orange bellbottoms but sadly I have since succumbed to their siren song). How ironic for those women who spend their lives planning a career that will enable them to have children only to find that they are barren. Pontificate on women's innate differences all you like - and then thank whatever Gods you believe in that you never have to make the decisions yourself.

There may be innate differences between men and women but they only make a huge difference if there is only one clear and distinct method in which to learn. Since there isn't - in fact the very subject matter itself is fluid and changeable - I am not sure that the innate differences are significant.

I may be confused about my child bearing destiny - but I can still park - and my husband can read a map and ask for directions - when we are incline dto do so.

[Matthew Whitfield]

Here here! The issue here is not whether there is scientific evidence to back up Summers' claim - of course there is, and of course women differ from men. The issue is one of discrimination, in other words, how one deals with those facts at an institutional and individual level. Publicly pointing out men's (supposed) superiority over women was pretty disgusting, and I don't blame nancy Hopkins for feeling ill. It's telling that the 'middle-class, white, tall, 20-20 vision, intelligent' AJE has to construct a comparitive discrimination for men like him - they die younger and so suffer a disadvantage at top board level. Why, because they're dead?! They sure as hell were probably on the board before they went toes up, unlike many women who face abitrary discrimination in the boardroom as elewhere in their lives. See http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=156&id=1400992004 and just think about those shocking figures. Biological facts are something we all have to deal with, it's just that the facts about men are never thrown back in their faces to stop them from achieving what they want to. As a society we should be striving for a mature and sophisticated treatment of the differences between all of us, not simply pretending that we are all equally discriminated against. It's utter tosh.

[AJE]

If we agree that it is a valid question to wonder if innate differences are a factor in the representation of different groups in industry, then Hopkin's reaction belied her status as a scientist. Whilst the two comments to my post are critical, you both agree that innate differences occur.

Therefore, discrimination is a good thing, in that otherwise people would acquire jobs randomly. The issue is whether discrimination is just. How do we decide who we should discriminate against? Positive discrimination, to me, is discrimination all the same. I do not belong in the "tall, middle-class, white, 20-20 vision, intelligent" category I created.

In the post I made two points: if there is discrimination in favour of men in the sciences, they'd suffer for it. Also, there is evidence to suggest that innate differences might make females of a certain age more employable than men.

Now, if discrimination exists despite these forces, I can only assume one of two conclusions. Either the industry is losing value, or there's an even larger offsetting force.

In the first case, there is a massive incentive to redress the balance: any firm that hires without satisfying prejudice will make more money than a firm that discriminates. This is why we see more black students on a football team than an English department - the cost of discrimintion is higher. This is why I find it so hard to accept the claim that a cartel of "white, middle-class, tall, etc etc" people discriminate - they'd go out of business.

The link, I believe, is the real tosh.
"my concern is that companies are not drawing from all the available talent." Cheers Ms Hewitt - as if the Trade and Industry Secretary need help the big firms to employ a higher standard of employee! The British government is a racist institution above all else, I do not bestow them the moral right to arbitrarily say how many women "should" be on a board.

So either firms lose money, or there's a larger force, such as the maternity condition, that make industries that require many years of training a less viable career for women than it does for men.

Now remember: there might be some historical accident, that made discrimination valid but no longer exists. For example if women were denied a secondary education they'd be unable to get degree. But we've pinpointed the discrimination to the root, and not the the consequence. The question is whether or not this is turning. For example, we are told how many black surgeons there are, and how many female CEOs. The question should be how many black people are currently starting their training. If institutions are hiring less able people, they'll suffer. My solution is to make them bare the full cost of discrimination, and flush them out of the market. As mentioned in my post, academia is somewhat insulated from the market. I'd therefore expect more arbitrary discrimination than in industry. (An empirical claim that is best contested through statistics, not logic).

I do not adhere to the conceit that I can know what does or does not constitute to valid discrimination.

And we should look for the root of discrimination, not the consequence.

[RP]

What is Tosh? Is it like Poo? Please lets try and use language that we can all understand (try to be a bit more inclusive....)